Andhra Pradesh Court April 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India and Others Vs. M.S. Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD22; 2001(3)ALT579
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 13-10-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6993 of 2000 is as to whether an order in terms of Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 holding the respondent herein as permanently incapacitated for performing the service is valid in law.2. The respondent was appointed as constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1983. He was later on promoted to the post of lance naik. He was, however, declared temporarily unfit on 9-1-1996. He was under treatment from 9-1-1996 to 18-7-1996. The Chief Medical Officer of Base Hospital-11, Hyderabad in terms of a letter dated 17-8-1996 recommended for his invalidation from the post. He, however, was given guard command duty till 17-1-1997. The Departmental Rehabilitation Board recommended for his retention for one year as he was being sent to the hospital ...
Meerja Hameedullah Baig Vs. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALD163; 2001(4)ALT215
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ 1. In these writ petitions, the vires of Rule 448-B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Rules') framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 28, 38, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is called in question. An incidental question as regards the correctness or otherwise of a decision of this Court in M. Venkateswara Rao v. Secretary, RTA, : 2000(1)ALT170 , also arises for consideration. 2. While admitting the writ petitions, it was observed that the findings of the learned single Judge in Venkateswara Rao's case (supra) to the effect that a writ ofmandamus would not lie directing the release of the vehicles nor the seizure itself can be declared as illegal as well as the finding that the aggrieved persons have to necessarily file application for release of the vehicle seized and detained by the competent authorit...
Chiristu Jyouthi Institute of Technology and Science, Rep. by Director ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALT589
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An interesting question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Roman Catholics can claim themselves to be Christian minority vis--vis another set of Christians namely Protestants. 2. A Writ Petition was filed by one Mr. M. David, 1st respondent herein, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition to admit him to B.Tech. (Computers) course in the minority institution run by the respondents 4 and 5 for the academic year 2000-2001.3. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner herein is an Indian Christian professing Protestant Faith. He passed Intermediate Examination in second division with M.P.C. group from St. Mary's Junior College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. He appeared for the EAMCEt-2000 examination, a common entrance test conducted for admission into Medical, Engineering and Agricultural Courses, in which he has secured 48615th rank. He intended to prosecute B.E. (Computers) Engineering course in one...
K. Balasubba Reddy Vs. Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT701
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether prima facie the provisions of Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Village Administrative Officers Service Rules, 1990 would be ultra vires having regard to the fact that there exists no provision for grant of subsistence allowance while placing the employee under suspension.2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order dated 20-2-2001 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 5 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order of suspension dated 16-11-2000 and the order of the appellate authority dated 29-11-2000, was dismissed.3. The petitioner has at all and material times working as an Village Administrative Officer. On an allegation that he gave a false nativity certificate to his daughter he had been placed under suspension by an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 4-11-2000. Upon being questioned, the said order was set aside by t...
Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Hyderabad Vs. Citi Bank, Mad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD830; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)411; [2001]106CompCas662(AP); 2001CriLJ4157
ORDER1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeking quashing of the proceedings in Calendar Case No.591 of 1998, pending on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said calendar case, which was instituted on the complaint given by the 1st respondent herein to punish the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').3. The case of the 1st respondent-complainant, is that towards discharge of equated monthly instalments of the loan payable by the petitioner-accused, he issued a cheque dated 1-5-1998 for Rs.9,972/-. When that cheque was presented to the drawee bank for realisation, it was returned with an endorsement 'insufficiency of funds' by memo dated 12-5-1998. Immediately, the complainant issued a legal notice on 19-5-1998 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount. Since there was no response from the petitioner, the complaint was filed. Al...
R. Bhaskara Rao and Another Vs. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD289; 2001(3)ALT88
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J 1. The two petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by their not being promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Engineering). The writ petition has been filed directly in the High Court without the intervention of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Petitioners plead that since they are challenging the very provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunals Act') as also its inapplicability, they need not resort to alternative remedy. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, : [1997]228ITR725(SC) . 2. The complaint of the petitioners is that even though they are borne on the cadre of the service of Hyderabad MetropolitanWater Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), their claims for promotion from the posts they are holding viz., Manager (Engineering) to the posts of Deputy General Manager (Engineering) are being i...
Jalumuru Krushnam Raju Vs. Chairman, Ug Admission Committee, Universit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD542; 2001(4)ALT62
ORDER1. The petitioner who secured admission into the MBBS Course under an enhanced quota for the year 1992-93 filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to treat him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate by duly declaring that the respondents cannot hold successive enquiries on his social status.2. This Court while giving notice on admission in the writ petition, by order dated 1-9-1994 in WPMP No.19279 of 1994, directed the authorities to receive the application of the petitioner for the First Semester Examination but he shall not be permitted to take the examination without the orders of this Court. Subsequently, the writ petition seemed to have been admitted on 21-9-1994. Thereafter, WPMP No. 19279 of 1994 came up for hearing before my learned brother Justice B.K. Somasekhara as he then was and his Lordship modified the earlier order and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to take the examination. At the same time, this Court directed the respondents not to publish t...
K. Abdul Gafoor Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD535
ORDERS.R Nayak, J 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-employee is entitled tq grant of pay and allowances for the period during which he was kept under suspension and/or removal from service.2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kumool in Dis. No.7250/Estt/96, dated 11-9-1996 and the order in Roc No.98/ 1998 C II/1, dated 8-2-1999 by the High Court on the administrative side.3. The relevant background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be noted briefly as under:When the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Einmiganur from 7-12-1983 to 7-12-1996, departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the alleged ground of misappropriation of the Government funds. After holding the departmental enquiry and on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the learned District Judge, who is the competent aut...
D. Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Vasudev Asrani and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALD510; 2001(3)ALT544
ORDER1. This revision is directed against an order dated 22-2-1988 passed in EP No.25 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge has held that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was not an executable one.2. The petitioner herein filed a suit OS No.3863 of 1980 before the XI AssistantJudge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent-judgment debtor and, on 24-10-1983, the same was decreed in'' favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, an application purported to be under Order XXI, Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for delivery of possession of immovable property for a sum of Rs.1,028/- against the judgment Debtor No.l and the schedule of property mentioned in the application. An objection was, however, raised by the judgment debtor that me execution petition was not maintainable. The learned executing Court concurred with the said contention of the judgment debtor and in support thereof re...
S. Venkata Subbaiah Vs. Kodavali Chinnappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ308
1. This appeal arises out of the order and decree in O.P.No. 105 of 1994 on file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. On 17.12.1993 at about 8 A.M. Kodavali Sekhar Babu, a boy aged 8 years, boarded a tractor bearing registration No.AP 03 8015 (to which a trailer bearing registration No. APK 2695 was attached), at Kondreddigaripalle to go to Vijaya Bharathi School at Madanapalle, with the permission of the driver of the tractor. He sat behind the driver of the tractor. When the tractor and trailer reached near the field of Bheemireddi, the driver of the tractor while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden brakes. Then Sekhar babu fell down from the tractor, he was ran over by the same and died on the spot. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the parents of the deceased boy, filed the O.P. claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under all the heads put together. 3. The owner of the tractor (fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »